Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Should We All Move to Canada?
The high cost of prescription medications in the United States has been troubling health care providers and their patients for years. Physicians worry that it will do no good to prescribe a medication to someone who won't be able to afford to buy it, and patients who try to save money by taking less than the prescribed dose worry that that they're putting their health in danger. Any failed medical treatment that harms a patient is fertile ground for a lawsuit against the physician, even if he or she is not the one to blame. Should medical practitioners suggest imported drugs to their patients who might otherwise not be able to afford their prescribed medications?
The U.S. Drug Sales Story
Many other developed countries have put strict limitations on the drug prices that can be charged to their citizens. The United States, however, has shied away from setting drug prices, a situation that leaves American consumers in the unenviable position of having to foot a disproportionate share of the worldwide bill for drug development, manufacturing and advertising. Because of the disparity between the prices of pharmaceutical products inside and outside the United States, Americans living in border states have for years been crossing the frontier into Canada (and to a lesser extent, into Mexico and other countries) to purchase their medications at discounted prices. This demand even led to the growth of a tour bus service sub-business specializing in bus tours to Canada for the sole purpose of transporting consumers across the border to get their medications at low prices. Although such practices might technically be considered illegal, Americans have generally been allowed to bring medications for their own use home with them from foreign countries. However, drugs imported for personal use into the United States from Canada over the Internet and through mail-order almost universally violate the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) because they are unapproved (21 U.S.C. ' 355), are labeled incorrectly (21 U.S.C. '' 352, 353), or are dispensed without a valid prescription (21 U.S.C. ' 353(b)(1)). Importing a drug into the United States that is unapproved and/or does not comply with the labeling requirements in the FFDCA is prohibited under 21 U.S.C. '' 331(a), and/or (d).
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.